You can make a difference in the Apple Support Community!
When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.
When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.
I have a late 2013 iMac, 27, with OS 10.12.6.
I want to get a 32 inch, 4K external monitor. 3840 x 2160.
Can my iMac do this?
Thanks.
iMac 27″, macOS 10.12
Right that is the refresh rate in cycles per second, it may make things not so smooth on moving objects, stationary screens should look OK.
You'd also need 3rd party SW to set the refresh rate...
Let me see if I can get more helpers in here...
iMac 27 Late 2013 4K@60Hz Support - Apple Community
Nope...
Built-in Display:27" 16:9 WidescreenNative Resolution:2560x1440
Details:This model has a 27" LED-backlit 16:9 widescreen TFT active matrix display with IPS technology and a native resolution of 2560x1440. Apple also reports that the "cover glass is fully laminated to the LCD and an anti-reflective coating is applied." Previous Aluminum iMac models have the LCD covered by glass. The company no longer reports viewing angle or contrast ratio, however.
2nd Display Support: Dual/Mirroring*2nd Max. Resolution:2560x1600 (x2)
Details:*This model can simultaneously support two external displays up to 2560x1600 via Thunderbolt.
I had an idea.
At present, I cannot run a 4k monitor on my late 2013 iMac.
I plan on getting the next Mac mini to come out, hopefully next month, but maybe next year.
In the meantime, is it possible, just grasping here: I get a 4k monitor, but set the display to 2560 x 1440?
A) Would that work, and B), if it did work, would it ruin the monitor?
Thanks.
Many thanks. Previously, I had a 32 inch Samsung, 2560 x 1440.
My next monitor will also be 32 inch, probably LG.
I mention this because I don't know if a 32 is harder to push than a 27. Although logic tells me that pixel count would be the same.
Oh, I've watched about 10 hours of videos on USB-C, HDMI and Display port connections.
My next monitor will probably not have USB-C. So, for my purposes would HDMI or Display port be better?
I presume I could get a USB-C to Display port connector.
Or would simple HDMI to HDMI be simplest and best?
Also, I don't do gaming, just make books on Indesign, and short instruction videos. So, a fast 'refreshing rate' or whatever, I think is not important to me. Thanks a lot.
Should just be pixel count mostly, slight diffs for number of bits per color.
Thanks. I asked because I found something that appeared (if I understood correctly) to say that it was possible. See attached.
Got a link to that, found another source that says up to 2560 by 1600 pixels.
I think it would support it at 30Hz but not 60Hz
Thanks. I presume 30 is not as good as 60?
You're saying it if I set the monitor to 30, it might work, but I the picture would be sub par?
Just a non-starter all the way around?
A) That should work on most Monitors.
B) No, it shouldn't hurt at all.
In my experience it doesn't matter much which port to port you use.
I have a late 2013 iMac 27, running 10.12.6 OS.
